Not necessarily another '1979'

By Paul Iddon

A historical parallel worth pondering and scrutinizing.

Iranian revolution.

Following what he described as the Obama Administrations deer-in-the-headlights policy with regards to Egypt in the revolutionary period of early 2011 Conservative commentator and columnist Victor Davis Hanson asked if we were facing a redux of 1979. Earlier this month he posed a similar question pondering whether or not “2012 will be our 1979.” The main premise of these articles was that Obama – like Carter in his last year in office – will ultimately through a questionable foreign policy inadvertently give a green light to countries the US is suspicious of or actively hostile against to take bold measures – with the understanding that they can get away with them with little or no consequences – that will hurt American interests and Americas allies like he argues Carter did in 1979.

This isn't a rejoinder to any of those articles, but is instead an examination of how this historical analogy applies to Iran. As the Iranian revolution is probably the most salient example of Carters ineptness. For his indecisiveness during the Shah's downfall and the ensuing 444 hostage crisis eventually lost him the 1980 presidential election, as well as empowered the fundamentalist reactionary elements of that revolution.

1979 was also the year that saw Carter broker a long lasting peace agreement between Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin. However following Sadat's assassination by Islamic Jihad and Mubarak taking the office of president the following US administrations did little to democratize Egypt, and Mubarak inevitably became a self-centred megalomaniac in a manner reminiscent of the Shah in his later years.

Also reminiscent to the Shah and Mubarak were the perceptions of them held by both Carter and Obama close to the end of their respective reigns. Toasting with the Shah some ten months before the revolution Carter commended him, stating under his leadership his Iran was “an island of stability, in one of the more troubled parts of the world.” Obama in a similar manner spoke of Mubarak as being a “force for stability” and declined to acknowledge that he was a dictator, since he didn't want to “label folks.”

Although it's seen by many as a hinge moment in history that sparked a violent epoch of embroiling holy war the roots of the Iranian revolution are by all means very admirable. The masses of Iranian civilians who bravely gathered in what grew to be millions to face down the most powerful autocrat in the Middle East were fighting for what was sure to be a promising future. Instead from exile came an aged cleric whose reactionary forces made Iran a pariah state as by storming a foreign consulate it showed that the norms of international diplomacy were a wholly alien concept to them. A people who had for too long been pushed around, bullied and subverted only got a brief whiff of modernity and self-determination before the actions of the reactionary fundamentalists plundered these hopes and aspirations and simply saw to it that theocratic tyranny replaced the secular tyranny previously afflicted by the Shah.

The origins of the Shah's palpable isolation and heightened state of megalomania are worth looking into. The origins in question being the 1953 coup against Mossadeq and heavy American and British backing of his peacock throne which itself would move on to become alarmingly authoritarian in its nature and policies following that horrendous affair. The blow-back for that calculated US/UK act of Cold War Realpolitik in 1953 quite evidently culminated in the 1979 revolution. A fact recognized and clearly understood by the present Republican contender Ron Paul, who has often used Operation Ajax as an example of how questionable imperialistic foreign policies of the past have embroiling effects in the present. He has as a result argued along the lines that such foreign policy endeavours inevitably come back to bite America on the ass. Whilst he is to a large degree correct in his assessment one feels that past crimes aren't an excuse for negation of reparation in the future. Hence walking away from problems you helped or had a role in creating isn't a responsible thing to do. Nor is giving credence to a chauvinistic provincial isolationist under culture on the American right a particular healthy thing to do in a world that is becoming all the more open and globalized.

Recognizing past wrongdoings or crimes is a good thing to do, giving reparations and amends is an even better thing to do and would help make the world all the more safer and prosperous. Now that would be a foreign policy worth relentlessly pursuing for the good of the peoples of the respective countries.

Returning to the 1979 analogy that Hanson posed, one actually hopes that there is at least a latent possibility that 2012 will encompass some preconditions present in Iran in 1978-79, that being a prevalent desire for and willingness to pursue a grassroots revolutionary regime change. What the Obama Administration needs to do for the rest of its first term – and indeed for the duration of a second term if Obama is re-elected – is take a stand now for the various democratic and reform movements in Iran and reassure them that the United States supports them in their struggle, and that such a revolutionary change to a palpable secular and democratic system is something the US welcomes. And those Iranians in pursuit of it have the support of the US, not just retroactively if they succeed in what is sure to be a bitter struggle, but during their grassroots inception and gradual growth and evolution. So when and if there is a redux of the 'original' revolution in 2012 or 5 years down the road the US administration shouldn't make the mistakes and indecisiveness that led to the fiasco of 1979 which saw the hijacking by violent reactionaries of a sound and just revolution.